Laserfiche WebLink
- FILE#07-3254 <br /> 9 January 2007• <br /> . Page 3 of 4 <br /> � exception of the proposed ,deck and the proposed porch, and while the proposed porch <br /> may not affect fihe lake views it extends into the 75' setback zone. The proposed deck <br /> also may not �ffect lake views enjoyed by the acljacent homes is locaied almost entirely <br /> within tlie 75' zone. <br /> The subject property'�s 75'-250' hardcover allowance is substanti�l at 6,890 s.f, however <br /> the existing and proposed levels far exceed the allowed amount at 9,536 s.f. Even when <br /> accounting for the substaniial concrete removals within the 75' zone, fihe harcicover <br /> within the 75' zone (both exisiing and proposed) fiirther push ihe 75'-250' zone into <br /> excess. After the 75' zone hardcover is applied to the 75' -250' zone the leve] is over <br /> 10,000 s.f. ai 37%. The in-ground pool, relatively large footprint of the home, defiached <br /> garage and considerable driveway hardcover all contribute to the 34% hardcover. While <br /> the home, cietached garage and addition do not exceed the struchiral coverage limits; ihe ' <br /> � excess hardcover on the propei�ty is difficult to support. , � <br /> The position of the existing home on fihe lot and the orient�tion of the lakeshore on the <br /> property cause approximately 7' of the home to encroach into the 75' zone. The <br /> applicant is proposing a flirther encroaclunent of a porch and deck. The deck would be <br /> almost entirely within the 75' zone (setback of 59' from the OHWL) and the porch is <br /> proposed to encroach at the most 5' into the 75' zone. Both are contributing to the <br /> nonconformity of stri.ict�ire and hardcover levels within 75' of the lake. <br /> Hardship Statement � � <br /> Applicant has completed the Hardship Documentation Forn1 attached as Exhibit B, and <br /> should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. <br /> Hardship Analysis <br /> In co�rsirlering applicatioirs for varialrce, t/re Plairiring Conrnrissio�r s/rall consider tlle effect of the <br /> proposet!varirrnce�rpo�r t/te/renit/t,safely a�rd welfare of llre conrnrruriry, erisling rurd ruiticipnted t�affrc <br /> conrlitinrrs, liglrt antl nir, dnnger of ftre, risk to ilre ptrblic safety, n�r�l!/re effect on vtrlues of property i�r <br /> t/re surro�nrrling are�. T/re Plnnniiig Conrmission s1�a/1 consirler reconrnrenrling apprnual for varinnces <br /> fronr 01e/ilera!pranisions of tbe Zo�ri�rg Corle in ins�a�rces wllere t/reir strict enforceme�rt luaul�l cause <br /> tmdtre lrtrrds/r!p becntise of circumstnnces n�riq�ie to the lndivltlertr!property u�rder co�rsiderntion, anrl <br /> � s/ra/1 reco�rune�rd «pprovn/ o�r/y tv/te�r it is rlenronstrrrted t/1n!strch acllons will be in keeping ivit/t tlre <br /> spfrtt a�rd nrten!of l/�e Oro�rn Zn�riirg Cnrle. � ' <br /> Staff fiiids that with respect to the average lakeshore setback variance, the applicant's <br /> proposal is reasonlble and there is hardship inherent in the location of the existing home <br /> to support most of the proposed addifiions, specifically the additions to the street side of <br /> the home. The additions proposed ahead of the 75' setback are difficult for staff fio <br /> support as the hardcover levels on the property seem excessive as well as the lack of <br /> hardship for a hardcover variance of this nature. The applicanfi has two garages, a large <br /> driveway and parking area adjaceilt to both, a very large pool, and considerable paved <br /> areas around the home. While the removal of the plastic under the landscape rock is an <br /> improvemerifi, it is a required component of hardcover review and cannot be considered a <br /> net reduction. Staff feels that ihere are more opportuniiies for h�rdcover reductions both <br /> within the 0-75'and in fihe 75'-250' zones. � <br /> . 3 <br />